Re: beagle compiler

[Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net>]

In article <naWOg.8397$v%4.4320@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
 BluPhoenyx <bluphoenyx@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> >>> But which, if any, of these compilers/enviroments was self-hosted
> >>> (compiled using itself)?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think this may only apply to HyperC but I couldn't say for sure. 
> >> IIRC, the doc's mention something about this. Since both C systems use 
> >> byte code interpreters I would not be surprised if both were 
> >> self-hosted. Without original source files we may never know.
> > 
> > Actually, it would be easy enough to take a look at the compiler
> > and see if it is M/L or interpretive code.  Although using the same
> > runtime doesn't guarantee that it was self-hosted, it's a strong
> > implication.
> 
> The problem is, what is data, what is machine code and what is 
> interpreted. With HyperC, you should be able to tell where interpreted 
> code starts by looking for BRK. This assumes that there are no BRK codes 
> anywhere in the machine language code.
> 
> Aztec C may not have been self hosted as Manx had cross compilers to 
> generate 6502 code.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Mike T.

My copy of Manx Aztec C had two compiler options available - One would 
compile to either P-code (smaller RAM footprint, relatively quick, 
impossible to run without a runtime interpreter module or within the 
supplied test environment) or pure 65(C)02 (bigger RAM footprint, *MUCH* 
faster, totally stand-alone)

-- 
Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info